AP All-Time Top 100 Mens Basketball Programs
The Associated Press has been ranking the best teams in college basketball since January 1949. Over 68 years and more than 1,100 polls, a total of 200 schools have been ranked and 59 of them have been ranked No. 1 (Saint Louis was the first No. 1).
To determine the all-time Top 100, the AP formula counted poll appearances (one point each) to mark consistency and No. 1 rankings (two points each) to acknowledge elite programs. Keep in mind that AP doesn’t release a poll after the NCAA Tournament, so eventual national champions are not factored into these rankings. Instead, this list focuses more on those programs that consistently appear in the poll and/or at the top during the regular seasons.
The poll started with 20 teams ranked each week until it was reduced to just the Top 10 midway through the 1960-1961 season. It then returned to a Top 20 format for the 1968-69 season. The poll expanded to 25 teams starting with the 1989-1990 and it has remained that size since then. The first preseason poll was introduced at the start of the 1961-1962 season.
Michigan is #14. Kentucky is #1. Other B1G programs include IU (#6), Illinois (#11), OSU (#12), MSU (#13), Maryland (#17), Iowa (#23), and Purdue (#24).
fire beilein. am i doing this right?
You need wistfully long for the Amaker days at the same time
March 30th, 2017 at 10:56 AM ^
Yes, even though we had fewer Sweet 16 appearances that decade than in the 2010s (which aren't over).
eight Big Ten teams in the top 25 but I guess Iowa is the only individual team that surprises me. This seems about accurate in terms historical relevance. And OSU and MSU (and probably Illinios) would have only passed us in the 00's.
I'd put us above Illinois. They've never won a title and we have two more FF appearances than them.
but they have creamsicle blazers...
Waiting for the people who always say Michigan isn't a top historic basketball program and thus should not be able to recruit high tier players...
Little known fact, Michigan has produced more 1st round NBA draft picks than any other program in the B1G.
We're also 12-2 in Sweet 16s and are 1-5 in Championships. Imagine if we win 3 of those... We're a blue blood and the whole conversation changes.
That whole tournament was a pretty easy path for MSU. They played a serious dog in Wisconsin in the semis and their region wasn't difficult.
The Louisville and UNC title games are the ones we let get away. Michigan was the better team in both instances. Win those two games and Michigan has the same number of national titles as Kansas. Crazy to think about in some ways.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:02 PM ^
I've been beating this drum for years. A couple shots go differently and Michigan is perceived as a basketball giant on par with virtually anyone.
If we'd won all six title games, we'd be third all-time only behind UCLA and Kentucky. Obviously that'd be some great fortune. Still...
If we'd gone 3-3 that would be good for 7th place along side Louisville (unless one of those three wins came against them, in which case we'd have more titles than they do,) and Kansas. That's right. If we won just two of those fives games we lost, we'd have the same number of titles that Kansas has, and we'd be perceived as a relative equal in terms of prestige to one of the programs everyone automatically invokes when discussing college basketball giants. Think about that. TWO GAMES play out slightly differently and we're Kansas. Out of the thousands and thousands of games Michigan basketball has played. TWO. Just two. Yet many of our own fans act like we're miles behind the elite b-ball schools.
Even winning just one of those five games we lost gives us the same number of titles as Michigan State, a program that many self-loathers among us want to concede permanent status as the number one team in the state. We'd have one more than Arizona, one more than Maryland, one more than Illinois (three schools that, again, many of our own fans will suggest are way ahead of us as basketball programs.) If Trey Burke doesn't get called for a phantom foul, we have two titles right along with MSU and Louisville, two programs that even most of our own fans seem to perceive as being much better basketball schools. Why? Why should one game make such an enormous difference in perception?
I'm not pointing any of this out to argue that Michigan basketball should get more credit from national pundits, however. In the end, we didn't win those games. But the fact that we are within a couple buckets of truly elite status ought to at least be enough to convince the self-doubting fans among us that we are more than capable of having an elite program. The post-sanctions lull was the exception for Michigan basketball, not the rule. We can and should win at a high level with some consistency. So when the time comes that we need to hire another coach, we should go into that search with high standards.
Give Beilein serious credit for bringing Michigan basketball back. He deserves it. But picking the right person to replace him when that day comes is critical. We have no reason to settle.
March 30th, 2017 at 12:44 AM ^
I think the problem with your logic is who the audience for the perception is. You're arguing that we were a few plays away from being seen as elite, and therefore we should be thought of as elite. That may work for fans, but it doesn't work for 16, 17, 18 year olds who grew up when Michigan was completely irrelevant. The perception of recruits matters here.
Now, with regards to hiring a good coach when the time comes and Michigan's ability to do so; I think it has everything to do with money, facilities, and ability to win with respect to the expectations of the fans and administration. Money should be no problem and Beilein has shown that winning is possible. You're right that we should be able to draw a big time candidate; I just don't think it has that much to do with the fact that we almost won more championship games.
March 30th, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^
number of national titles do not make a program. If that were the case, there wouldn't be much difference between Michigan and Minnesota football. Fan and institutional support/expectations make a long-term program. Unfortunately the dark years of the 00s killed a lot of the support the basketball had and it hasn't come back nearly to what it was.
If two additional nat'l titles had come before that period, I seriously doubt we'd be in a different place at all. If one of them was 2013, do we really think winning the title compared to coming up a hair short would have made a difference in recruits eyes to propel us to getting five stars year in and year out? I don't think so.
Besides, you could easily argue that we're a top 14 program now, which is in line with historical standards. In the last five years, we've made the title game, elite 8 and sweet 16. Definitely not 14 programs that can boast better results in that time span. Definitely not 14 programs that have put more guys in the NBA. We do have the institutional support such that we can pay a very good (but not quite elite) coach excellent money to keep the program stable and in the top 14ish.
Might want to read the column headers there.
NBA draft used to have more than 2 rounds, so 56-33 = 23 picks in rounds after the 2nd round. 33 includes the 24 in round 1, plus 9 additional 2nd rounders.
Well we certainly don't recruit like a top 15 team...
that misrepresents what a single data point - Cincinatti - says about the data to fit a narrative. Riiigggghhht.
March 30th, 2017 at 10:57 AM ^
about cherry-picking data points to "prove" a narrative that the full data doesn't support - which is exactly what you were railing against.
If you read the article, you also would have noted that the 50s were the worst decade for Michigan bball and that every decade through the 90s was better than the decade before. So it's not that this ranking is coming from success in the 50s and 60s, it's the 80s, 90s and 2010s. We had one dark decade in modern history. People that measure our success against that decade are not doing it right.
But I completely agree that kids don't care about 40 years ago, and I don't think they care about the past at all other than what it says about the coach they'll play for. They care about the current coach almost exclusively, whether they want to play under that coach, and what that coach means for their chances of winning a title and getting to the NBA. We don't recruit at an elite level because our coach isn't an elite recruiter. Simple as that. Whether they think he's not "cool" or that his brand of "white boy" basketball won't prepare them for the NBA, or that he doesn't coach defense or whatever the perception is. It has very little to do with history or the program and everything to do with the coach.
But I don't care one bit that we don't recruit with Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky for the one and done's. I think we recruit well enough. We had six 4-stars in our eight man rotation this year. I was talking up our talent all year long which is why I thought we were underachieving halfway through the season. No way we should have been at danger of missing the tournament with our talent and experience.
That's something people deserved to be upset about - not recruiting. Then we righted the ship and played the way we should have so the staff deservedly got off the "warm" seat that they deserved to be on.
MSU has to be upset at their ranking relative to ours, given how much credit they give themselves as a basketball school.
Delete - duplicate. I feel bad.
Not as bas as Michigan State does, apparently.
This list is certainly interesting, but it is based solely on AP rankings, without taking into consideriation anything about NCAA tournament success or championships, which I do think are important facets of a truly dominant program. So it might be more accurate to interpret this list as an indicator of regular season consistency, right?
Only 2 teams in the top 25 who didn't appear in the poll until at least the 1960s, us (63-64) and UNLV (at #25, 73-74).
Also interesting to me, incredibly sharp drop off between the top 2 teams in % of polls (both at over 75%) and the rest. Then another big drop off after the 9th team (top 9 all in at least 45% - lowest being #8 Arizona at 45.41%), while no one else breaks 39%.
Why isn't Ohio State, #12 on this list of historically super awesome teams, recruiting all 5 stars? Forget about #FireBeilein, if anybody is on the hot seat it's Matta.
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2016/3/29/11322174/ohio-state-basketba…
Once you get past Kansas at #5 (857 points) there's not much separation between schools. The difference between Kansas and Michigan (857-423=434 points) is more points than Michigan has. To take this list and say Michigan should be recruiting with the elites is not being honest with the facts. We're closer in points to Oklahoma State at #34 than we are to Syracuse at #9.
National Championships: Michigan-1 Syracuse-1
National Championship Game Appearances: Michigan-6 Syracuse-3
Final 4's: Michigan-7 Syracuse-6
Elite 8's: Michigan-13 Syracuse-10
Sweet 16's: Michigan-14 Syracuse-22
NCAA tournament appearances: Michigan-27 Syracuse-38
Conference Championships: Michigan-14 Syracuse-9
National POY: Michigan-2 Syracuse-0
1st round NBA draft picks: Michigan-24 Syracuse-23
Consensus 1st team All Americans: Michigan-9 Syracuse-12
All Americans: Michigan-32 Syracuse-27
Who is being dishonest now?
Anyone can make any argument within an arbitrary timeframe look a certain way, that's why I'm not a fan of them. This thread is about mens basketball programs ALL TIME, not since the Fab 5, so I don't see the relevance. All you did was move the goalposts.
What on earth are you talking about. I simply responded to the comment "people comparing us to even Syracuse are being extremely dishonest about our program" by providing the numbers to put that statement into a numerical and historical context. This discussion is not about Jim Boeheim and John Beilein, and no one is asking anyone to choose between the two, so why are you even bringing this up.
March 30th, 2017 at 10:23 AM ^
If you are going to quote me, you might want to use my exact words and not paraphrase what I said and put that in quotes. That's REALLY dishonest.
We were comparing teams based on your OP - some weird AP points system. When you didn't like those results, you added a whole bunch of other criteria, in essence, changing the discussion, i.e., moving the goalposts.
You want us to recruit like elites. Jim Boeheim, Calipari, and Pitino are considered elite coaches. I prefer not to be mentioned in the same breath as those morally ambiguous coaches. You are allowed to broaden the discussion but I'm not? OK, sure buddy.
There it is, I was waiting for when you were going to start lobbing insults because I had the audacity to challenge one of your posts backed up with with facts and numbers. I guess that means I have an agenda.
By the way, I haven't mentioned recruiting once in this thread, so I have no idea why you are looking to instigate an argument I haven't shown the slightest bit of interest in having. Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative though.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:46 PM ^